Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 7
| < December 6 | December 8 > |
|---|
December 7
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what its name implies, Ships by name is not a category for all ships to be listed by name, but instead for articles and categories regarding famous ship names. Thus these should be merged. Joshbaumgartner 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Category:Ships by name has a clear purpose. I am not at all sure about Category:Ship names, which is the stronger candidate for deletion of the two. CalJW 04:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for reasons given by nominator STopCat 23:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Two different things. The subcategories of Category:Ship names seem to merely be unsubdivided duplicates. Bhoeble 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not commonplace to categorize vessels by their fate, or who sunk them. This data exists as a list of ships sunk by the Imperial Japanese Navy. Joshbaumgartner 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Jinian 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as requested. Sumahoy 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no distinction between cities and towns in Denmark. This category contains everything from Copenhagen down. In these circumstances we usually have a combined category. Rename Category:Cities and towns in Denmark. CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as requested. Golfcam 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A city is simply a town of significant size and importance. There is no need to change the category name STopCat 00:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This is normal practice. Bhoeble 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as requested. -Mayumashu 04:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Cities and towns in Greenland --Kbdank71 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one town under towns; the town/city distinction does not seem useful, consider the small number. -- Beland 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Where there is no distinction practice is to use a combined category for cities and towns. This appears to be the case based on an assumption that the practice is the same as for Denmark. Therefore merge into Category:Cities and towns in Greenland. CalJW 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It's best to keep the original STopCat 00:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Cities and towns in Greenland --Vizcarra 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per CalJW. --Idont Havaname 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per CalJW unless anyone knows different about the situation in Greenland. Bhoeble 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per CalJW. Sumahoy 16:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated at Category:Leeds United F.C. managers and forming an unpleasant subcategorisation mess. MeltBanana 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bhoeble 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No other Thing class things seem to be hyphenated. MeltBanana 18:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename It's nice to be tidy. Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Joshbaumgartner 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Jinian 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was abandoned in April when the Hong Kong and Macao current events pages fell into temporary disuse. "Events" or "Past events" categories have been used for current events for a couple of other countries but they have been deleted for ambiguity in favour of the prevalent system of national categories by year. I have moved the articles to Category:Years in Hong Kong and Macao, which already existed, and its subcats. Delete. CalJW 18:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For reasons given. Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons given. Golfcam 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found this category in category:Anti-communism and it isn't what I expected it to be at all. I was planning to remove it from there on the grounds that domestic surveillance happens all over the world against all sorts of groups, but if it is specific to the CIA, it should say so. Rename Sumahoy 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename for reasons given. Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom - N (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be in the speedy merge section. MeltBanana 16:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge - N (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, non-standard name covered by Category:History of Kuwait. MeltBanana 15:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sumahoy 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy' CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - N (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting and frankly crappy category for a seemingly inactive project. Not good as it is listed 2nd in Special:Categories. MeltBanana 14:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An embarrassment to wikipedia, even though it is well meant. Rhollenton 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course. Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CalJW 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Crappy implies POV, something that we were trying to avoid here last time I checked. Although, the part that says "or control-click, or command-click, or Ctrl+Shift+Enter. You do use Firefox, right?" deserves saving somewhere... -- Lardarse 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Rude. Golfcam 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BANDWAGON --Liface 04:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Rename as "Fix poor prose". - Wezzo 10:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should not be based on or titled with mostly unattested neologisms. While the existence of large cities that simultaneously function as suburbs of larger ones is certainly a valid demographic phenomenon, there's no evidence that "boomburb" is the generally accepted word for it; the term doesn't even have its own article. Delete or provide proof that the term actually exists in common usage. Bearcat 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or listify if term exists in moderately common usage. Kusma (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article hyperlinked to Category:Boomburb explains that social scientists have long sought a term for rapidly growing suburbs, and "boomburb" appears to be the most fitting and accessible one. It has appeared in the mainstream media, e.g. in USAToday. I have intended to write an article for "boomburb". Many articles on Wikipedia deal with obscure terms that are not "in common usage" - should they be summarily deleted? Part of the value of Wikipedia is that it can capture emergent terms and concepts, long before they could appear in a print encyclopedia. Unless there is a better term that has received equal or more press than "boomburb" to describe what is a significant phenomenon transforming the face of urban America, especially in the Southwest and West, why can't it stand? Is there no value in including it? Denvoran 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with documenting new phenomena on Wikipedia is that it can be a tricky balance between documenting terms and concepts that are emerging organically, vs. using the encyclopedia in a conscious attempt to promote and influence their emergence. We absolutely cannot do the latter, and it can sometimes be tricky to determine at what point an emerging phenomenon has crossed the line into the former. Considering that I had never heard the word "boomburb" before seeing your category on a Canadian city a few hours ago, I sincerely doubt this word has reached that point. But I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if you can show me some proof that it has actually become a standard term. "Boomburb" gets exactly 205 distinct Google hits, which doesn't suggest a term in common usage to me. Bearcat 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until the term is much better established. Rhollenton 14:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perfectly good subject for an article, for the reasons mentioned by Denvoran above, and list of applicable cities, but not a category. Categorization requires definition, which a term that is both subjective and of limited precedence such as this lack. How fast must a city grow, how close must it be to a larger city, are there cultural or other aspects that can qualify or disqualify a city, and many other questions need to be answered first. Joshbaumgartner 15:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and make this either a list (not a category) or a Wiktionary entry, if proof of usage can be provided. I live in one of these 'Boomburbs' and this is the first I've heard the name. Kickstart70 17:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly not in wide usage. Bhoeble 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, orphaned, improperly formatted.
- Unnecessary? No. Orphaned? It doesn't appeared to be. Improperly formatted? Propose it for renaming. Keep Soltak | Talk 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, born? or alive in the 1930s? It doesn't matter... delete. --Vizcarra 01:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a good way to divide politicians. This approach would create category clutter is widely applied. Rhollenton 14:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a bad idea. We don't want to start dividing people up by decade as there would be no end to it. CalJW 04:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not part of a system, and shouldn't be in my opinion. Sumahoy 16:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.